Understanding student development is a very important part of student affairs. Theories of student development can assist student development officials in understanding students. One type of theory that is particularly helpful to student affairs officials is psychosocial theories. Psychosocial theories of college student development address such issues as how people define themselves, how they define their relationships with others, and how they decide what they want to do with their lives. Student development theory is important because it can aid in describing, predicting, explaining, and controlling changes in student behavior (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998). This paper will compare Chickering's theory of student development and Erikson's theory of student development.

According to Chickering, "Psychosocial theories view development as a series of developmental tasks or stages, including qualitative changes in thinking, feeling, behaving, valuing, and relation to others and to oneself" (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p. 2). Chickering proposed seven vectors of development. Students move through each vector, however the vecto

Chickering's theory is useful for current affairs research. One could do research on a group of undergraduate students every 6 months during their 4 or 5 years of study. The group could include women, people of different ethnicity, different ages, and different sexual orientation. One could study the differences of development between Chickering's study and this new, more inclusive study. Erikson's theory, however, is not as useful. One could do research using Erikson's theory, but it would not be very applicable to college students because they are not the main focus of the study.

Erikson believes that there could be basic differences between males and females in the process of development or in the content of their thoughts, feelings and values. Erikson notes that women could define their identity based on the men around them. Erikson believes that the people with whom she has relationships determine a woman's identity. Chickering does not state that there are any differences in development based on gender. Chickering believed that his model could be applied to any college student, male or female.

Erikson's theory and Chickering's theory can also be compared concerning intimacy. According to Erikson, intimacy must come after identity because a person cannot be sure someone is the right one for himself or herself unless he or she is sure who he or she is. First, a person must define his or her interests, goals, desires, and then he or she can know if this person fits with those values. Chickering believes that developing mature interpersonal relationships must come after successfully moving through autonomy toward interdependence. Chickering thinks that one must have increased emotional dependence and self-direction, which are the same things that Erikson believes when he says that a person must have their own interests, goals, and desires before a person can have an intimate interpersonal relationship. Both theories believe one must know who one is and what one wants before one can develop an intimate relationship.

The two theories differ in the focus of their studies. Erikson's theory covers adult development from birth to old age, not specifically the development of students while in college. Chick

Some common words found in the essay are:
According Erikson, Erikson's Chickering's, Chickering Erikson, Erikson Chickering, Education Understanding, Chickering Reisser, Chickering Erikson's, Chickering Psychosocial, Forney Guido-DiBrito, erikson's theory, student development, Erikson Chickering's, student affairs, chickering's theory, college students, sexual orientation, erikson believes, current student affairs, current student, useful current, theory applicable, erikson believes people, theory useful current, student affairs practice, san francisco jossey-bass,
Approximate Word count = 1514
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)